You are on page 1of 3

FRASER v. STRANG COMMUNICATIONS et al Doc.

5
Case 1:07-cv-03026-NLH-AMD Document 5 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AARON WALTER FRASER, : Civil Action No. 07-3026 (NLH)


:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : OPINION
:
STRANG COMMUNICATIONS, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
:

APPEARANCES:

AARON WALTER FRASER, Plaintiff Pro Se


F.C.I. Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640

HILLMAN, District Judge

Plaintiff Aaron Walter Fraser, an inmate who is confined at the Federal Correctional

Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. The Court will grant in forma pauperis status and dismiss the Complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff seeks damages of one-hundred million dollars against Strang Communications,

Frederick K.S. Price, Crenshaw Christian Center, and Stephen Strang, for breach of promise. He

alleges that on June 16, 2007, he purchased a book entitled “Answered Prayer Guaranteed!” He

alleges that the book, which was written by Frederick K.C. Price and published by Strang

Comunications, “guaranteed that if I prayed according to the book’s formula, I would be

guaranteed an affirmative answered prayer.” (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff asserts that the book failed

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:07-cv-03026-NLH-AMD Document 5 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 3

to live up to its guarantee and, as a result, he has suffered emotional and psychological damage,

and he is in a worse state than before he purchased the book. (Id. ¶¶ 9-13.)

II. STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat.

1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996), requires the Court, prior to docketing or as soon as

practicable after docketing, to review a complaint in a civil action in which a plaintiff is

proceeding in forma pauperis. The statute requires the Court to review the complaint to identify

cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim if the Court determines that it is frivolous,

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

A claim is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous if “the

facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic,

and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted). A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate “when the facts alleged rise to

the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable

facts available to contradict them.” Id.; accord Hines v. United States, 166 Fed. Appx. 610, 611

(3d Cir. 2006).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s allegations that God did not answer his prayers, contrary to promises

Defendants made in a book, are factually frivolous under the Denton standard. This Court will

accordingly dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2
Case 1:07-cv-03026-NLH-AMD Document 5 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 3

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the

Complaint as frivolous.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

Dated: August 6, 2007

You might also like